Hmm. Tanstaafl means there's no free lunch, right? Those broadcasts come with commercials. If someone distributes TV shows, they get less advertising dollars. Stations sell advertising based on how many people are watching shows. If nobody's tuned in, then nobody's going to advertise. If I can get an episode from my friend with no commercials to watch, you best believe I'm going to do it rather than have to tune in at a certain time and sit through the ads.

In reality, the networks don't give a damn if people watch Friends. They want people to watch the Ford and Budweiser and Burger King commercials which are in between Friends. So any "increased distribution" of the shows is irrelevant to their agenda unless the commercials are there.

I'm not calling those who share or skip commercials using the RTV 4000 evil, I'm just saying they're pirates by definition. They're obtaining something without "paying the piper" by sitting through commercials. But so is someone who flips over to a digital music channel, or someone who fast-forwards through them on their VCR, or someone who goes to the fridge while they're on. And as I've said, I am likely to put my name on the list for one of these things, as I think it's a cool device. But if I watch broadcast TV without watching the commercials, I am in some small way reducing their bottom line. Do I give a $hit? No. But do they have a legal case against the product I'm using? Hell yeah.

Yes I'm taking this definition of pirates literally, but that's what judges do in court, right?

If I can get an episode from my friend with no commercials to watch...

Aye, but there's the rub. You won't get the episode without commercials -- they will still be in the file you receive from him. The trick is, your Replay can play the file and automatically skip over the commercials if you so desire. But this is no different from receiving a videotape copy of the program from a friend and skipping over those commercials.

But that's not the point I am making -- the net result of this "piracy" is that more people are exposed to the program. This means the network can claim that more people watched the show, and set their advertising rates accordingly. That's how they make their money -- the more people that watch a show, the more they can charge for advertising. They do not factor in how many people "go to the refrigerator" during commercials.

So, I guess I still cannot understand why the networks would start a lawsuit to make fewer people watch their show. As you said in your previous post, it isn't the piracy that they are upset about -- it's the skipping of the commercials. They can't sue just because people don't watch the ads... but they can sue on a piracy issue, even though the more "piracy" that occurrs the better off they are. It's as though they're saying "Please, please watch our shows. But don't let your friends watch them because that would be piracy."

Go figure...

tanstaafl.

For me, it is contradictory intentions from the 3 big because I remeber when the first VCR appeared , big companies were scandalized cos they said it announced the Death of cinemas.
There is still cinemas in the world.


When you record a TV program with classical VCR, they imagine that we cannot evitate commercials....

When I want to give a program to someone, i give this person the tape and he can watch it with no commercials.
With network sharing, you can give recorded programs easily.

Finally, I am not a lawer, but for me the Freedom is to watch what I want on TV.

I dont want watch Friends, i do not watch Friends.

But with commercials, it is more difficult to get trough.

Commercials are almost imposed.
That is against freedom of people.

In reply to:

---

they imagine that we cannot evitate commercials

---

You'll have smu reaching for a dictionary again!

Hi.

But that's not the point I am making -- the net result of this "piracy" is that more people are exposed to the program. This means the network can claim that more people watched the show, and set their advertising rates accordingly.

I don't know the exact system in the US, but if it is by any means similar to the one used in Germany, that statement is untrue. Sure, more people will see their program, and probably also more people will actually see the commercials (heck, there are times when I actually enjoy watching those), but due to the system used to count the people exposed to the program, they probably can't set their ad rates any higher.
In Germany, there is a certain institution (can't recall their name though) that "counts" how many people watch which station/program. To achieve this, they don't actually count _every_ _single_ person that watches TV, but have a (large) group of people who keep a record on when they watch TV and which program. More accurately: They use an additional remote to tell a blackbox which one in the household is actually watching TV and which program, and that blackbox transfers that info back to the institute via a seperate phone line. Those families are also instructed to "check out" from watching TV for fridge/bathroom/etc. breaks and to check back in afterwards. Now the problem with this procedure is that the blackbox has no way of knowing which programs you might have taped or plan to tape (well, more modern boxes are able to be told about future recording events), but most certainly have absolutely _no_ way of knowing how many people are watching a taped show in the future. Don't forget that those quotes are often published within the same hour or the next day at the latest.

cu,
sven

You'll have smu reaching for a dictionary again!

Not necessary, inevitable is really much more common than inebriate, but in this special case, even looking for "evitate" would return a result for my most used online dictionary at http://dict.leo.org/?lang=de or http://dict.leo.org/?lang=en for the english version:

1 search results for 'evitate' 

English:                German: 

evitable accident       vermeidbarer Unfall

Hey, I did this lookup just to please you.

cu,
sven

The RTV 4000 story is now on CNN Headline News as I type this... They're saying Hollywood is going to go after them as well because people can basically rent a pay-per-view movie and record a perfect digital copy and send it, blah blah blah.. The CEO of SonicBlue (Ken something) was on and sounding WAAAY too much like the Napster execs.. Talking about how the RTV4000 is giving power to the consumer and "that's not what the big networks want..."

Napster tried the "revolt against Big Brother" strategy and look where they are... This is big business, not some political revolution. I wish these executives would check in with reality every once in awhile and realize they're just businessmen, not philosophers or religious figures. I'm sure this guy has to be smart to get where he got, but come on, saying this thing is a weapon in the war against big monopolistic networks is so trite it's embarssing.

Looks like the board of directors sent the CEO packing (apparently related to the recent finanical investigations going around - and that he needed to repay a loan to SonicBlue). The new CEO is apparently going to downplay the lawsuit (::give up::) and focus on getting the company profitable (which is always good).

http://www.eet.com/sys/news/OEG20020812S0029

(Isn't it funny how people with money always win)